Poll: Do you receive under the species of wine?

[Brendan]

But when it comes to bread, I eat. I drink wine. .

What do you do with Flesh and Blood?

 

[Young_Thinker]

Yes we are physical beings, but Christ left none of the physical accidental properties of Himself in the Eucharist. Zero, not a single one.

Why is that?

Perhaps that is because He still wants us to use faith rather than our senses. I am sure that the bread and wine were visibly transformed during the Consecration into human blood and pieces of raw meat, no one in his right mind could not believe in the Real Presence. But then again, I wonder how many “civilized” people would want to eat raw human flesh, even if it is Jesus.

 

[Incomplete]

Correct, you drink blood. Christ didn’t tell us to drink His wine, He told us to drink His Blood.

So we drink the Substance of His Blood under the guise of bread. The accidents are bread and eating, the Substance is Blood and Drink

We do not literally consume blood. We literally consumer a consecrated host. We sacramentally receive blood.

He didn’t tell them to eat and drink the bread, which had the same completeness as the consecrated host.

 

[Incomplete]

What do you do with Flesh and Blood?

It’s Christ’s sacramental presence. There is no literal blood in the consecrated host, so I don’t drink the consecrated host. It’s sacramental.

I do what the apostles did. Jesus gave them bread and wine. He said “eat” for one and “drink” for the other. He didn’t say consume. And they didn’t literally consume Jesus. They consumed Him sacramentally, but it was just as real as literally.

 

[Brendan]

It’s Christ’s sacramental presence. There is no literal blood in the consecrated host, so I don’t drink the consecrated host. It’s sacramental.

I do what the apostles did. Jesus gave them bread and wine. He said “eat” for one and “drink” for the other. He didn’t say consume. And they didn’t literally consume Jesus. They consumed Him sacramentally, but it was just as real as literally.

Yes, it literally IS Flesh and Blood, but under the illusion of bread and wine.

You really need to learn more about the Thomastic distinctions between Accident and Substance.

Your response to the Eucharist, the actio, has both accidental and Substantive properties. The accidental property is identical to those of chewing, but the Substantive property of the actio, what you are REALLY doing is both eating and drinking.

The Reality of the Eucharist is that it is Flesh and Blood, no matter what the species;, and the REALITY of our response is that we both eat and drink, no matter what the species

 

[Incomplete]

Yes, it literally IS Flesh and Blood, but under the illusion of bread and wine.

You really need to learn more about the Thomastic distinctions between Accident and Substance.

Your response to the Eucharist, the actio, has both accidental and Substantive properties. The accidental property is identical to those of chewing, but the Substantive property of the actio, what you are REALLY doing is both eating and drinking.

The Reality of the Eucharist is that it is Flesh and Blood, no matter what the species;, and the REALITY of our response is that we both eat and drink, no matter what the species

It is not a literal body and blood. It is sacramental. And yes, it is substantial. But not literal. There are no veins in it, no blood dripping from it. Show me Church teachings that say it is literal.

 

[benedictgal]

Here is the Lauda Sion:

Sion, lift up
thy voice and sing:
Praise thy Savior
and thy King,
Praise with hymns
thy shepherd true.

All thou canst, do
thou endeavour:
Yet thy praise
can equal never
Such as merits
thy great King.

See today before us laid
The living and life-giving Bread,
Theme for praise and joy profound.

The same which at the sacred board
Was, by our incarnate Lord,
Giv’n to His Apostles round.

Let the praise be loud and high:
Sweet and tranquil be the joy
Felt today in every breast.

On this festival divine
Which records the origin
Of the glorious Eucharist.

On this table of the King,
Our new Paschal offering
Brings to end the olden rite.

Here, for empty shadows fled,
Is reality instead,
Here, instead of darkness, light.

His own act, at supper seated
Christ ordain’d to be repeated
In His memory divine;

Wherefore now, with adoration,
We, the host of our salvation,
Consecrate from bread and wine.

Hear, what holy Church maintaineth,
That the bread its substance changeth
Into Flesh, the wine to Blood.

Doth it pass thy comprehending?
Faith, the law of sight transcending
Leaps to things not understood.

Here beneath these signs are hidden
Priceless things, to sense forbidden,
Signs, not things, are all we see.

Flesh from bread, and Blood from wine,
Yet is Christ in either sign,
All entire, confessed to be.

They, who of Him here partake,
Sever not, nor rend, nor break:
But, entire, their Lord receive.

Whether one or thousands eat:
All receive the self-same meat:
Nor the less for others leave.

Both the wicked and the good
Eat of this celestial Food:
But with ends how opposite!

Here 'tis life: and there 'tis death:
The same, yet issuing to each
In a difference infinite.

Nor a single doubt retain,
When they break the Host in twain,
But that in each part remains
What was in the whole before.

Since the simple sign alone
Suffers change in state or form:
The signified remaining one
And the same for evermore.

Lo! bread of the Angels broken,
For us pilgrims food, and token
Of the promise by Christ spoken,
Children’s meat, to dogs denied.

Shewn in Isaac’s dedication,
In the manna’s preparation:
In the Paschal immolation,
In old types pre-signified.

Jesu, shepherd of the sheep:
Thou thy flock in safety keep,
Living bread, thy life supply:
Strengthen us, or else we die,
Fill us with celestial grace.

Thou, who feedest us below:
Source of all we have or know:
Grant that with Thy Saints above,
Sitting at the feast of love,
We may see Thee face to face.

Amen. Alleluia.

I think that St. Thomas Aquinas is pretty clear about these things. It was said that the Lord appeared to him in a vision and said, “Thomas, thou hast written well of me.”

 

[Incomplete]

Here is the Lauda Sion:

I think that St. Thomas Aquinas is pretty clear about these things. It was said that the Lord appeared to him in a vision and said, “Thomas, thou hast written well of me.”

Maybe the confusion is that you think I believe (contrary to Church teachings) that I only receive His flesh in the consecrated host and His precious blood in the consecrated wine. I don’t. I agree with Church teachings. Otherwise I’m really kind of baffled that people care whether I think I’m drinking the consecrated host or not.

But once again, though Christ is wholly present, the entire substance of Christ is present, it is still in sacramental (not literal) form. That is Church teachings.

So I eat the consecrated host. I drink the precious blood. Because that is what is literally present. The apostles ate the bread as Our Lord asked them to. They drank the wine as Our Lord asked them to. He didn’t ask them to eat and drink the bread. Because, though it was wholly, completely, substantially Jesus, it was in the form of bread, and we eat bread.

I think I have to be finished with this thread. I don’t see any way, short of quoting Church teachings, that you will convince me that I drink the consecrated bread. And I won’t convince you. But that’s quite all right with me, because you all believe He is really, truly present under both species, and that is what matters.

I’ll look at responses in case somebody quotes Church teachings, and in that case I will admit I am wrong, but other than that, I don’t plan to respond.

 

[Brendan]

It is not a literal body and blood. It is sacramental. And yes, it is substantial. But not literal. There are no veins in it, no blood dripping from it. Show me Church teachings that say it is literal.

It is literal. It is not physical ( which is what you seem to be confusing ‘literal’ with ) but yes it IS literally the Body and Blood of Christ.

Christ is Substantially Present in the Eucharist
Christ is Sacramentally Present in the Eucharist
Christ is Literally Present in the Eucharist ( in the both technical and colloquial defintions)

Christ is not Physically Present in the Eucharist ( Physica are all accidental properties)

 

[Incomplete]

It is literal. It is not physical ( which is what you seem to be confusing ‘literal’ with ) but yes it IS literally the Body and Blood of Christ.

Christ is Substantially Present in the Eucharist
Christ is Sacramentally Present in the Eucharist
Christ is Literally Present in the Eucharist ( in the both technical and colloquial defintions)

Christ is not Physically Present in the Eucharist ( Physica are all accidental properties)

I used the term “literal” because I see so many do. I have heard it said, “Not literal, but sacramental”, and since that phrase made sense, I kept with it. So in this case it would matter how you mean “literal”. But yes, you make sense.

I actually came back to add words from the Mass and from Corinthians: When we eat this bread and drink this cup…

And: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” from Corinthians

 

[Brendan]

FYI,

Here is Fr. John Harden on Transubstantion.

scribd.com/doc/40910061/Eucharist-Doctrine-on-Real-Presence-Part-II-By-Fr-John-a-Hardon-S-J

Having defined what takes place in transubstantiation, the Council of Trent identifies the

extent of this presence. **Christ is literally present wherever the physical properties remain

of what had been bread and wine**. Says Trent, "If anyone denies that in the venerable

Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each of the species and

under every portion of either species when it is divided up, let him be anathema."

( here is a bit on Fr. Harden, I have several of his textbooks, his cause for Canonization is open in St. Louis and he was also active here in Detroit )

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hardon

 

[Brendan]

I used the term “literal” because I see so many do. I have heard it said, “Not literal, but sacramental”, and since that phrase made sense, I kept with it. So in this case it would matter how you mean “literal”. But yes, you make sense.

I actually came back to add words from the Mass and from Corinthians: When we eat this bread and drink this cup…

And: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup” from Corinthians

I have no disagreement with St. Paul

But his comments refer to the accidental properties only, we can see this by the colloquisim “drink of the cup”, cups are solids, not liquids

We certainly DO eat this species of bread, but we also drink of it. The same is true for the chalice.

 

[Incomplete]

FYI,

Here is Fr. John Harden on Transubstantion.

scribd.com/doc/40910061/Eucharist-Doctrine-on-Real-Presence-Part-II-By-Fr-John-a-Hardon-S-J

( here is a bit on Fr. Harden, I have several of his textbooks, his cause for Canonization is open in St. Louis and he was also active here in Detroit )

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hardon

And as you said, it’s not a physical presence. It is literal in that Jesus is really and truly present, in that it is really and truly Jesus, but He is sacramentally present. That is Church teaching. I used “literal” the way others have when teaching about it. But yes, Christ is truly there. Really and truly. But you see no hand, no hair, no great smile. He is sacramentally present. We consume the bread by eating it, just as the apostles did.

Fr. Hardon is using the term “literal” to mean really and truly there. I can see where these terms are confusing. I don’t want to get into a debate about whether I should have used the word “literal” or the word “physical”. Greater minds than I have used the word “literal” to mean that we don’t consume Jesus by biting into Him the way we would if He were standing here. Instead, He is sacramentally present. Which doesn’t make Him any less present. Really and truly present, completely present, body, blood, soul, and divinity.

But we eat the consecrated host.

I’m not sure if you thought this quote from Fr. Hardon would convince me that we drink bread, but I see that nowhere in that quote. Nor do I see that it is not a sacramental presence.

sigh

I really need to not come back. I’m going to have to unsubscribe to resist temptation. Maybe at some point I’ll come back to see if actual Catholic dogma says we drink the consecrated host. Until then, this is fruitless. It draws nobody closer to God.

If you were splitting hairs on word choice, my apologies. I should’ve clarified what I meant by literal. But now I have.

And do remember, if this discussion continues, that there are people who can accept transubstantiation when they realize it is sacramental, but can’t accept that we eat Jesus the same way we would if we saw Him standing here and decided to consume Him. It can keep people from the Church. Because that’s what some believe we teach. But we don’t. We teach that we receive Him sacramentally.

 

[rben20]

The norms specifically state “priest”, “sacredo” in Latin. The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments clarified that only the priest and the bishop can do this. Furthermore, when I spoke to them (on several occasions over the same issue), I was told that even in the USCCB’s own norms, it was indicated that only the priest (and obviously, the bishop) can do this.

Well damn, St. Patrick’s EMHC all do intinction every Sunday Another reason why this should just be left only to the priest and deacons…

 

[Domnall]

I choose to receive just under the species of bread. The reason being is that I receive communion kneeling, and on the tongue during the Mass of Paul VI. I do it because personally, I feel more humble by receiving on the tongue without touching the host.

Now, this transfers to why I do not receive from the cup. I would feel uncomfortable touching the chalice and I see a disconnect between having the host placed on my tongue and consuming from the chalice.

Though, when I go to the Melkite Catholic Cathedral in Boston, as they distribute communion by intintion.

 

[cecilia97]

Hi all,

I’m curious as to whether people generally prefer receiving Communion under the species of wine or not and why.

For myself, a long time I received only under the species of the bread simply because that’s what my parents did. It wasn’t until college where I really bothered to try and understand the reasoning behind an individual’s decision to receive under both species.

Of course, Jesus is present under both species, but I have found that usually the reasons cited for only receiving under the species of bread tend to be more logistical. Whereas the reasons for having both species tend to be more “higher” reasons. I mean, it’s tough to argue with “that’s how Jesus did it”.

In any case, I was curious to hear others opinions on the matter. As for myself, I receive under both species when it is available.

I’ve received the Precious Blood twice in my life: my first Communion and my wedding. I would probably agree with all the “higher” reasons for receiving under both species, but my immune system has never cooperated with me very much.

 

[Incomplete]

I have no disagreement with St. Paul

But his comments refer to the accidental properties only, we can see this by the colloquisim “drink of the cup”, cups are solids, not liquids

We certainly DO eat this species of bread, but we also drink of it. The same is true for the chalice.

But it’s the accidents we ingest. We eat the accident of bread and drink the accident of body.

And consume Christ wholly in each. Because He is present sacramentally.

 

[Brendan]

But it’s the accidents we ingest. We eat the accident of bread and drink the accident of body.

And consume Christ wholly in each. Because He is present sacramentally.

When Christ said that His Blood is True Drink, do you disagree?

 

[Incomplete]

When Christ said that His Blood is True Drink, do you disagree?

Of course I agree.

And I’m only here because I thought I was unsubscribed, but I’m not. I’m unsubscribing in a minute.

But to clarify…we receive Christ sacramentally. For me, I cannot drink bread. Though Christ is really and truly present, completely present, in the Eucharist, I only receive Him sacramentally. So when I receive the consecrated Host, I am eating, not drinking.

But when I receive the precious blood, I am drinking.

Jesus gave both bread and wine and said “eat” for one and “drink” for the other. So it is no surprise He would say his blood is true drink. That doesn’t mean He was saying we drink bread. Even though both are present in the consecrated host, they are both present sacramentally.

If you read John 6, you will see every reference to bread mentions eating, not drinking. And since we receive Him only sacramentally, and since He later offered Himself also in the form of wine, what He said about His blood being true drink does make sense, while not contradicting that we still only eating the consecrated host. Because the consecrated host is not liquid. Not in any form. He is sacramentally present. But when Jesus offered wine to the apostles and called it His blood, it was liquid. So then they could drink His blood. It was (and is) real drink in that form.

So…I receive all of Him. And I eat in one form and drink in the other, the same way He offered His apostles.

You have your opinion, I have mine, and we’ve wasted way too much time on something that is completely irrelevant to our growth as Christians. I initially intended to watch the thread and not comment, just in case somebody came up with Church doctrine that stated we drink the consecrated host. But I’m pretty sure that’s not going to happen. I did try to unsubscribe once (because obviously I can’t resist defending myself, or I wouldn’t still be here.) I’m going to do it again and hope to get it right this time.

But before I go, in case you think I’m trying to convince you, I’m not. Because this issue matters not at all. It’s just a matter of opinion, nothing more. I kept coming on to defend my belief. But I would suggest you expend you energies in issues that matter, as I should’ve done. I was wrong to continue this.

I suspect you can’t resist another post. You seem to be like me that way. Go ahead and finish this then. If, in fact, you can find Catholic doctrine that shows this is more than just your opinion, PM me. Because of course I stand to be corrected if it’s doctrine. Otherwise, this is just way too time consuming, and doesn’t do a thing for you, me, or any other readers to bring us closer to God.

 

[asia53]

It depends where I am sitting. If I am one of the first to receive the cup (ie. first 50 or so) and feeling healthy, I will. However, if I am one of the last of several hundred…no. I also note who has been coughing and sneezing around me, and if they receive the cup, I will not. Likewise, if I am not feeling well, I will not receive the cup.

I do the same.